source of the claims asserted,’ [the Court’s] focus remains on whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring those claims.”49 As discussed above, Plaintiffs allege two possible theories of standing. First, Individual Plaintiffs argue that their votes have been unconstitutionally denied. Under this theory, Individual Plaintiffs must show that Defendant Counties’ use of the notice-and-cure procedure, as well as Secretary Boockvar’s authorization of this procedure, denied Individual Plaintiffs the right to vote.50 Second, the Trump Campaign maintains that it has competitive standing.51 Both theories are unavailing. Assuming, as this Court must, that Plaintiffs state a valid equal-protection claim, the Court finds that Individual Plaintiffs have adequately established an injury-in-fact. However, they fail to establish that it was Defendants who caused these injuries and that their purported injury of vote-denial is adequately redressed by invalidating the votes of others. The Trump Campaign’s theory also fails because neither competitive nor associational standing applies, and it does not assert another cognizable theory of standing. 49 50 51 Id. (brackets and internal citations omitted). As discussed above, to the extent that Plaintiffs would have premised standing on the theory that Pennsylvania’s purportedly unconstitutional failure to uniformly prohibit the notice-andcure procedure constitutes vote-dilution, such an assertion would be foreclosed under Bognet. 2020 WL 6686120, at *9-10. Accordingly, the Court will only consider whether Individual Plaintiffs have standing under their vote-denial theory. In the interest of comprehensiveness, the Court also addresses whether the Trump Campaign has associational standing. - 14 -